We’re getting our own TSA

A SINGLE, super frontline agency to police Australia’s borders will be set up, taking over the role of Customs, as the Coalition positions for the next phase of protecting Australia’s economic gateways from transnational crime.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison will today unveil plans, to be detailed in Tuesday’s budget, to establish the Australian Border Force, which will have responsibility from mid-next year for enforcing all Customs and immigration laws.

The Australian Border Force, which will be set up as part of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, will be led by a commissioner reporting directly to Mr Morrison.

It will take over the work of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, which will cease to exist from July next year.

The name – the Australian Border Force. Really? These days bureaucratic speech would have provided a name like “Borders Australia”. This kind of “strong man” politics just looks ugly.

The structure – led by a commissioner reporting directly to Mr Morrison. I reckon he tried to get a serving military officer but that was too much for everyone else.

The propaganda – the next phase of protecting Australia’s economic gateways from transnational crime. Wow. Sounds serious. Now I’m happy to believe that criminals make use of transport hubs the same as everyone else, but I’m not convinced that the existing arrangements are inadequate.

The savings – The consolidation of Customs and immigration border operations will deliver “hundreds of millions in savings’’, to be ploughed back into the agency, and could result in job cuts. Yes, well. Time will tell on that point. We’re told, however,

“The creation of the Australian Border Force is about strengthening our borders,’’ he will say. “It is a reform measure, not simply a savings measure.’’

Overall this looks like an empire building exercise. It is not all clear that a standardised, rule-based, bureaucratic process such border control needs to have a politician in charge of it.

Having seen that TV program Border Security (which I realise is not really the whole deal, but showing incidents which customs must have been comfortable going to air), and the breath taking limp-wristedness enforcement of laws on display, there may be some sentiment that the existing arrangements were simply not enough.

ABF sounds fine to me too. Force is often required; it is a good thing. And a politician’s in charge and responsible – that’s a bad thing? Quite the opposite; it’s a good thing. Think how much more accountable the judiciary would be if a politician was in charge. Or the ABC – a prime example of what happens in an unaccountable bureaucracy.

This is one Commisariat that will do some good ,pity its a commisariat ,with a commisar leading it ,sounds like something the useless party would set up ,they love Commisars!what about Force
With a Commanding Officer ,that sounds less communist and will get up the lefties noses,nice Military ring about it
Commanding Officer,Australian Border Protection Force!
Sounds Really Good!

Words mean something and I really like the sound of ‘force’. We mean business and no more namby pamby softly softly nothingness. About time Australia developed a backbone and put it on show with words and actions. Scott hasn’t let us down to date.

Considering the amount of contraband said to currently entering the Country while Customs look on it won’t be too long before they enter the people smuggling business to supplement the income already being “earned” from drugs and firearms now coming in via carefully un-inspected containers.

1. The new agency does not result in a net increase in the APS bureaucracy — that is, is workforce is drawn from the existing Operation Sovereign Borders taskforce and its existing APS support. And,
2. Sir Scott Morrison is named as Minister for Border Repulsion Of Undesirable Aliens and Executive Chairman For Life, Australian Border Force.

It is not all clear that a standardised, rule-based, bureaucratic process such border control needs to have a politician in charge of it.
On the contrary, I should think the best way to make such an agency effective is to have a politician who is answerable both to the executive and the people, via the parliament, in charge of it and a commissioner directly under him. This removes the several tiers of bureaucratic padding that so often prevent ministers from having effective oversight of their departments. The present administrative structure of Customs and Border Protection is manifestly inadequate for present needs, let alone future ones.

As for “Australian Border Force” I’m afraid force is the only thing criminals understand, Sinclair. To paraphrase George Orwell, people sleep safely in their beds at night because rough men are prepared to visit violence on those who would harm them. It’s an unpalatable truth, but one that we ignore at our own peril.

To say there is overlap and inefficiency would be the understatement of the century.

In some places they each have their own x-ray machines x raying the same bags, then each has there own passport inspector, and each has there own floor supervisors, and their seperate computer systems, on and in it goes.

The true test is simply if combined they are less expensive and a savings on the budget. I would say that huge savings is easily affordable. There is no reason at all the bag checker can’t check for drugs, check for animals plants and check your passport and immigration status all in on, instead of it being 3 seperate people.

Can’t wait for the unions to go ballistic over this one. Herring about things like this restores my faith in the liberal government.

Why not make it all part of the AFP, make customs/immigration like the PSOs who are part of the AFP but in a different command structure (secondable to the military police during wartime [I'm sceptical that the different services need separate beat police, they should be integrated like ADFIS]), make the coast guard a civilian maritime arm of the AFP during peacetime with the similar structure as before (but in both allow professionals to change career streams) and second them to the RAN during times of declared war or military commandeering?

The command of both arms could be headed by a AFP Commander or Assist. Comm. …

A bit of “ ugly Force” would be a good thing used on the ‘border jumper’ Jaffari. Or maybe the writer believes Staines treated Jaffari ‘pretty well’ Civil liberties are wonderful until the Jaffari’s come along.

The name – the Australian Border Force. Really? These days bureaucratic speech would have provided a name like “Borders Australia”. This kind of “strong man” politics just looks ugly.

Are there any police forces left in Australia?

I’m against paramilitiraztion of police, but having soemthing on the front line with a bit more teeth is fine by me. I think people being greeted by serious looking people in the airports is a good thing, as long as they are professional. As for people smugglers…well, makes sense to let the navy go do something else for a change.

If Sir Scott thinks they can save admin $ now spent on bureaucrats AND improve national security as well as consolidate more power under himself, then great!

Apart from anything else, the next ALP govt is likely to see a stronger Immigration minister than any other dept. They know another Rudd effort would see them out for a century. Every other ministry will be the usual weak leftist filth. Immigration closer to centre-left.

Above I proposed rationalisation of customs, quarantine, immigration and a hypothetical coast guard into the AFP and ADF.

This questions why we can’t rationalise the Sherriff and Corrective services with the police. Have them secondable to the AFP. Allow local government to run them, but only up to a certain of level of command – say a small shire might get a Chief Inspector – in the NSWPF/AFP on secondment he’d be a Chief Inspector/Federal Agent, Coordinator. The Police chief of say Wollongong could be a asst. comm if seconded to the state and a asst comm/natl manager in the AFP.

If a city is wealthy, it makes no sense to redistribute the wealth to a capital and then get it back in services. It need not be a one size fits all solution, it might be too expensive in some cases.

“Force” is fine with me. If it gets the luvvies’ panties in a twist*, so much the better. We should have police forces too, not police services.

If it was up to Sarah Hyphen and her merry band of fellow travellers we’d have “Defence Services”: marginally effective at natural disaster assistance but not much else.

I checked Vicpol ‘s website to check if it refers to itself as a ‘force’. It doesn’t. It seems it’s service delivery organisation, like Births, Deaths & Marriages or the CFA. The plan is, heaven help us, –

Effective Police Service Delivery;
Improving Community Safety;
Working with Our Stakeholders;
Achieving through Our People; and
Developing Our Business

Just the usual public service-speak bland nothingness. Those wishes could be applied to any public service department. They are generic and meaningless.

This one’s part of the deregulation agenda. Ports and airports have several overlapping jurisdictions and Acts under which Quarantine (whatever they are called this week) Customs and Immigration operate.

The idea is that first you merge the agencies and lower staff numbers where you can (mostly in Canberra), then you merge the functions at the airports to reduce costs to business and prevent duplication of function. There won’t be much manpower saving there as (you guessed it) their Canberra HQ’s already gutted the field operators (under the ALP-filth coalition) last year.

This will mean the field guys can work more efficiently, though.

Last rumour I heard was that the biggest chunk within Immigration (the Visa section) will be hived off this new agency, but it’s only a rumour.

The guys in the field are apparently fairly OK with the idea of the merger.

That was ‘bring together a lot of agencies, bury them in money, hire as many people again and add three more layers of management in Washington to create a vast new bureacracy’ material.

Howard deliberately avoided that model and for good reason.

From what I am hearing this is designed to cut costs to the taxpayer while improving outcomes for the airline business and keeping the current offshore border control operations on tempo while making them permanent and routine.

The British MI-1 – MI-6 system is many times better. They integrate their Police at a certain level or only have a few agencies – whilst not an argument against Federalism, there is local and state enforcement, then the US Marshals, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, DHS, Capitol Police, Park Police, US Park Rangers, DIA…DEA, eahc branch of military police, FBI Police, State Department Police (& Federal agents…), IRS, BATF…

John Constantine, are you deliberately challenging Sinclair Davidson? Who has somewhat of a record of posting things such as “all quarantine effort is a waste of money” (paraphrased).
He has a “you’ll have to get competitive and get over it” if you catch Indonesian wheat rust or something, you can’t expect the taxpayer to subsidise your financial protection.

I’m in the camp that were he to catch Drug-Resisitant Tuberculosis (another name would be “incurable TB”) that he’d just have to “get over it” and not expect his “health choices” to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

I’m in the camp that were he to catch Drug-Resisitant Tuberculosis (another name would be “incurable TB”) that he’d just have to “get over it” and not expect his “health choices” to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

SATP..I have this feeling in my bones that the Mid East will have a nuclear exchange within 5 years or so.
We’d better have some solid plans in place to deal with the refugees that that will create..
JMHO

I have seen the terms bloated, over-expensive, underperforming, poorly managed etc, and also heard that some parts of it work pretty well where they retain some inedpendence from the monster.

I think that’s typical of the way the Americans create these enormous new structures.

I don’t think generalisation’s really possible with something as big as the US DHS. Generally, the really big American Federal bureaucracies are awful, far, far worse than anything here, and far more wasteful by any measure.

Some relevant cost cutting should eliminate the most significant obstruction to the new agency being named the Australian Border Corps.
A feel-good name- even reflecting on the acronym leaves a taste as sweet as revenge.

Sounds redundant. Will cost more before it saves a cent. If not quickly and ruthlessly executed, the end result will be one more bureaucracy.

And to be more contentious, ABF…. Hmmm sounds like ADF. But the Australian Defence Force is not there to defend Australia’s borders. What was I thinking. The ADF has bigger fish to fry abroad: Afghanistan, Nigerian schoolgirls, and all.

One thing I don’t mind about this is that it’s a one-for-one deal – one agency comes in, another goes out.

As far as answering to a Minister is concerned, I thought that was a cornerstone of a Westminster democracy, that sooner or later everything answered to an elected official. This is where the United States has gone so terribly wrong – their equivalent of Cabinet is appointed from people who for the most part have never faced the voters.

If Morrison ferks this up, he risks losing his job at the hands of his electorate, and there’s nothing he can do to stop that short of establishing a dictatorship which would ultimately get him lynched anyway. That’s the inherent protection built into the system.

The major problem with the TSA is the people who have been hired to run and staff it – I’ve heard them described as overpowered mall cops. They should have been soldiers. That may have been W’s mistake, but Obama has done absolutely nothing to correct it and has arguably made it much worse.

From what I am hearing this is designed to cut costs to the taxpayer while improving outcomes for the airline business and keeping the current offshore border control operations on tempo while making them permanent and routine.

I really hope you are right on that.

I do believe that one job for the federal government is to defend the borders, and I also think there’s a lot that could be improved from where we are right now. I’m just bloody cynical after the sort of crap that the US has gone through with militarised police, and ask yourself when was the last time you saw an Australian policeman wearing tidy non-military uniform (i.e. not bovver boots, not overalls, not cargo pants, nothing that says “action man”) ?